Presidential Debate 2020

#2,032
#2,032
NorthDallas40 said:
Stupid or willfully obtuse pettifogger.

This is exactly the same BS you got busted on last time. “Yeah but if I define my scenario as thus then clearly I’ve supported my supposition”. LMFAO

Pick pettifogger.
Click to expand...
I didn’t “define the scenario.” Assuming that phrase means what the context suggests, the “scenario” was defined in bowlbrother’s post that you initially responded to.

You said that his “scenario” was unsupported, thereby agreeing to discuss that “scenario.”

Your attempts to insert a “politically validated via impeachment” standard is the only moving of the goalposts.

It’s not dishonest to keep kicking through the original set of goalposts. The fact that they’re only about six inches off the ground and two feet away is your fault for picking that argument. If you didn’t want that to happen, you shouldn’t have picked such a dumb argument.

To recap: you’ve proven yourself to be illiterate, obtuse, dishonest, feckless, and hypocritical. All to defend the “integrity” of a guy who brags about groping women, stole money from his charity, and makes “sarcastic” comments about nonexistent treatments for a virus that has killed almost a quarter of a million of his constituents. But hey, you proved that he hasn’t been arrested or impeached over the mountain of evidence that he tried to cheat to win the election. Well played!
 
#2,034
#2,034
RockyTop85 said:
I didn’t “define the scenario.” Assuming that phrase means what the context suggests, the “scenario” was defined in bowlbrother’s post that you initially responded to.

You said that his “scenario” was unsupported, thereby agreeing to discuss that “scenario.”

Your attempts to insert a “politically validated via impeachment” standard is the only moving of the goalposts.

It’s not dishonest to keep kicking through the original set of goalposts. The fact that they’re only about six inches off the ground and two feet away is your fault for picking that argument. If you didn’t want that to happen, you shouldn’t have picked such a dumb argument.

To recap: you’ve proven yourself to be illiterate, obtuse, dishonest, feckless, and hypocritical. All to defend the “integrity” of a guy who brags about groping women, stole money from his charity, and makes “sarcastic” comments about nonexistent treatments for a virus that has killed almost a quarter of a million of his constituents. But hey, you proved that he hasn’t been arrested or impeached over the mountain of evidence that he tried to cheat to win the election. Well played!
Click to expand...
You are starting to sound as unhinged as LG, EL, and BB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, BigOrangeD, hog88 and 1 other person
#2,037
#2,037
RockyTop85 said:
I didn’t “define the scenario.” Assuming that phrase means what the context suggests, the “scenario” was defined in bowlbrother’s post that you initially responded to.

You said that his “scenario” was unsupported, thereby agreeing to discuss that “scenario.”

Your attempts to insert a “politically validated via impeachment” standard is the only moving of the goalposts.

It’s not dishonest to keep kicking through the original set of goalposts. The fact that they’re only about six inches off the ground and two feet away is your fault for picking that argument. If you didn’t want that to happen, you shouldn’t have picked such a dumb argument.

To recap: you’ve proven yourself to be illiterate, obtuse, dishonest, feckless, and hypocritical. All to defend the “integrity” of a guy who brags about groping women, stole money from his charity, and makes “sarcastic” comments about nonexistent treatments for a virus that has killed almost a quarter of a million of his constituents. But hey, you proved that he hasn’t been arrested or impeached over the mountain of evidence that he tried to cheat to win the election. Well played!
Click to expand...
The information provided thus far referenced “details” that the investigation used to establish no collusion occurred. Period that is not in question that was the finding.

Thus the only way to imply collusion occurred would be to redefine the criteria. In your own words you said something like “but by any other standard” so yes you are redefining the criteria to fit your own level of proof. This is exactly what you got busted on last time pettifogger. It’s your go to play working to define your own scenario as proof. And all of your screeching in this post is it’s ok for me to redefine the level of proof as I see fit to say I proved my point. Bull ****.

Your evidence showed details which did not establish collusion.

Your screeching is but if I lower the bar I can prove it with the same details.

Now you are just resorting to the usual condescending name calling because you didn’t get your way again.

I’m starting to lean towards stupid but I’d need to see your W/L case record to refine further pettifogger.

So you pick stupid or willfully obtuse?
 
#2,039
#2,039
1972 Grad said:
You are starting to sound as unhinged as LG, EL, and BB.
Click to expand...

If it gets significantly worse, maybe I’ll announce that I’m quitting the forum in a fit of rage. I’ll make sure it’s so vitriolic that the moderators have to clean it up so maybe nobody will remember when I show back up a few weeks later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#2,040
#2,040
RockyTop85 said:
If it gets significantly worse, maybe I’ll announce that I’m quitting the forum in a fit of rage. I’ll make sure it’s so vitriolic that the moderators have to clean it up so maybe nobody will remember when I show back up a few weeks later.
Click to expand...
Good idea. Maybe you need a break.
 
#2,042
#2,042
NorthDallas40 said:
The information provided thus far referenced “details” that the investigation used to establish no collusion occurred. Period that is not in question that was the finding.

Thus the only way to imply collusion occurred would be to redefine the criteria. In your own words you said something like “but by any other standard” so yes you are redefining it he criteria to fit your own level of proof. This is exactly what you got busted on last time pettifogger. It’s your go to play working to define your own scenario as proof.

Your evidence showed details which did not establish collusion.

Your screeching is but if I lower the bar I can prove it with the same details.

Now you are just resorting to the usual condescending name calling because you didn’t get your way again.

I’m starting to lean towards stupid but I’d need to see your W/L case record to refine further pettifogger.

So you pick stupid or willfully obtuse?
Click to expand...
Stopped reading at “established no collusion occurred.”
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top